Events over the years have suggested to me that like the curate’s egg that Greenpeace is good in parts but in other parts not so good. I hold the view that their work to protect marine mammals (Whales and Dolphins) has been a good thing, while I think their campaigns on energy, GMOs and chemicals has not been so good,
I saw with interest a blog post in which they were commenting on something which was published in Nuclear Engineering, now I would like to make a few observations.
1. The words of Steve Kidd are understood by me to be making a reference to the problem of a government trying to favour a domestic company over a foreign company. I know many governments want to avoid imports to try to protect their own industry but this is a different problem to the question of “should a country regulate industrial activity for health, safety and environmental reasons”.
I say that a country’s government has a moral duty to regulate industrial activity to make sure that health, safety and environmental standards are kept high. Maybe Justin McKeating needs to write with more care to avoid mixing up different ideas. I suspect that if I was to mix up the Rainbow Warrier with the Exxon Valdez that Justin and the rest of the Greenpeace people would be upset, I could reply that “both are ships, so what is the difference ?” but I think that this would be a lame excuse. But do not worry I know the difference between the two ships and I promise not to mix the two up.
2. The blog ends with the words “Nuclear power is an old technology – its fundamental principles have hardly evolved since the 1950s. It looks like much the same could be said for some of its supporter’s views about nuclear power’s potential “customers”.“
I would like to point out that just because something’s fundamental principles have not changed in fifty years is not a reason to view it as bad. I think that this text is the product of some very odd thinking, I suspect it may be that the Greenpeace’s blogger has made up its mind as to what the answer will be and is now whatever he/she can to get the answer wanted.
The Greenpeace blogger is trying to make the nuclear sector look bad, as freedom of expression exists the person is free to communicate their antinuclear thoughts. But I do take objection at the use of such weak logic to support the persons point of view. I think that the use of poor arguments and bad evidence by the “greens” will harm nature and the environment in the long run.
I would like to point out something, Greenpeace praises wind power but windmills (they work using the same principles as a modern wind turbine) have been around for at least 2000 years. Also many Greenpeace activities involve their fleet of ships, a man named Archimedes worked out many of the principles of buoyancy, Archimedes did his work about 2000 years ago. So if a device is bad becuase it is based on theroy which has changed little in 50 years, then a device based on a theroy which has changed little in 2000 years is worse.
I think that the fact that a thing is based on a well understood set of principles is a good thing, it will reduce the number of nasty surpises which are possible.
If any Greenpeace supporters or staff read thing and do not like something I have read, feel free to write into me via a comment and we can discuss it like adults.
Filed under: Greenpeace |